American architect Robert Venturi hardly needs an introduction. He is one of the leading architects in what others later on would call ‘postmodernist architecture’. Nevermind the names or labels. The point is that he didn’t develop his style just because he thought it was pretty. There is a coherent reasoning behind all his choices and anyone who wants to understand the fundamentals should read his seminal “Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture”. The book was first published in 1966 after long research. The book focuses on the question why some architecture is interesting and fascinating while other types are not. It is mainly based on historic research and although some reviewers argue that he has only looked for examples that underpin his opinion while ignoring contradicting evidence, he has made an exceptionally strong case for the use of complexity and ambiguity in architecture.
So, what is the main argument about then? Basically, Venturi says, architecture becomes interesting when visual tension is introduced in the building. I use the word tension in the way he uses the term contradiction. It is contradiction but the overall result is a tension that catches the observer’s attention. But it is also ambiguity in the overall design, the position of the building in the space and vis-a-vis other buildings that contribute to this feeling of pleasant tension. In the words of Venturi himself: “Ambiguity and tension are every in an architecture of complexity and contradiction. Architecture is form and substance – abstract and concrete – and its meaning derives from its interior characteristics and its particular context. An architectural element is perceived as form and structure, texture and material. [...] The calculated ambiguity of expression is based on the confusion of experience as reflected in the architectural program. This promotes richness of meaning over clarity of meaning.” (2002: 20, italics RV). And that is not just a simple trick because Venturi outlines in great detail the sources of pleasant tension.
His work was and still is a great statement against modernism in architecture. He regarded modernism with its focus on simplicity, symmetry and harmony, as boring and completely devoid of vitality. Interestingly, he borrows from many historical examples rather than from his own designs (although is designs are also used in the book) to make his point clear. To a lay person like me, his argument is extremely convincing. I can’t give a final judgment about the validity of his argument but I can see why it is important, how it works and why it has had such an impact on the world. And looking at the grand modernist projects that are currently being destroyed in my country, I start to feel that Venturi’s point is still very… to the point. All people with an interest in the deeper ideas of architecture should read the book. Or at least have a look at the nice pictures.
